May 1, 2010

There's a Nebraska law that bans "most abortions after 20 weeks on the theory that that’s when the fetus can feel pain." There's a Mississippi bill forbidding public financing of abortions. And there are 2 new Oklahoma laws: "One requires women, even those seeking to end a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, to have an ultrasound and have the fetus described to them. The other prevents mothers from suing doctors who withhold information about fetal birth defects." Florida also has a new law requiring ultrasound before an abortion.

Blow frets that the Supreme Court will reconsider Roe. Of course, the Court reconsidered Roe back in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and any new litigation is highly likely to be only about applying the Casey standard to new legislation.

Blow points to polls:

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Friday found that the percentage of people who think that the Supreme Court is too liberal is at its highest since they began asking the question, as is the percentage of people who say that if Roe v. Wade were to come before the court again, the next justice should vote to overturn it. They’re not the majority, but it’s still not good.

Look at the poll. The question goes back to 7/21/05, when John Roberts was first nominated. 65% of those polled wanted Roe upheld. One month later, the percentage somehow went down to 60%. When Alito was nominated, the number was 64% and then a few weeks later, down to 61%. With Sotomayor, the percentage came in at 60, and now, it's 59%. I'd say the percentage is pretty stable, and there isn't any real downward trend.

According to a Gallup report released on Wednesday, the percentage of college-educated people who favor legal abortion under any circumstances has been dropping since the early 1990s and has now reached a new low. And while the largest overall drop was among men over 65, it was closely followed by a drop among women under 30.

Note that the Gallup question isn't asking about abortion rights. If the Supreme Court stopped protecting access to abortion as a matter of constitutional law, the states could keep it legal. Read the material at the Gallup link, and you'll see that it mostly shows stability in opinion on the subject.

In the end, Blow show why he's pushing readers to think there's a big fight coming. He wants Obama to "nominate a warrior" to the Supreme Court. Instead of recognizing the stability of the case law and of public opinion and accepting the idea of a dignified Supreme Court that applies itself diligently to the task of deciding cases according to an orthodox legal methodology, Blow would like us to view the Court as a political battleground, and he wants a well armed new Justice. The metaphor here is military.

He says he'd like his Supreme Court "warrior" to be someone "who agrees with Representative Long." Here's what Blow said about Long (after noting the new state laws "enacted mostly by men, that seek legal control over women’s bodies"):

I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should “stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

I think that all decisions that rely on Griswold vs. Conn. and "penumbras emanating from the Constitution" should be revisited.However, I do not think that would result in any return to the view of law prior to Roe v. Wade. The nation, indeed the world, has moved on, and the legislatures would quickly jump in to block any such ideas.

As I recall, Casey said that Roe's standard of trimesters is wrong and a "viability" standard should be used instead.

With all the experience of premies (how do you spell that?) at hospitals nowadays, you'd think that this would continue to push back the time to allow an abortion. I've heard (from a friend of a friend of a friend, so not reliably) that babies have been born at 19 weeks and still survived. It doesn't seem too unbelievable. If they ever learn how to grow a child in a test tube to full term, then conceivably abortions could be made illegal.

It seems to me that this approach to overturning Roe is most sensible.

As far as polls go, James Taranto's Roe Effect would appear to be at work.

That said, since the balance of the Court hasn't really changed, I don't see how another round is really going to prove anything. Unless the entire administration and Congress is recalled (not a bad idea, BTW) and you have Conservatives replacing some of the old Lefties, we're not going too far on this one.

Here's what Blow said about Long (after noting the new state laws "enacted mostly by men, that seek legal control over women’s bodies"): I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should “stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

It is interesting to contrast:I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should "stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”against our blog mistress who opined earlier :Hey, buddy. My career is not your messaging device. My birth canal is not a beacon of light to the unenlightened.Granted, the topics are different (warriors vs moms with kids), but the theme of ovaries vs non-ovaries is an interesting one.

Maybe when some women respect the undeniable fact that a fetus/embryo is a genetically unique lifeform that develops into a human being every single time, I'll start trusting their judgment regarding ovaries.

Job #1 is taking the country back from the marxist thug and his minions. Making a big deal of abortion will muddy the waters and more important lose the mushy middle. Put it on the back burner for now, conservatives.

I do enjoy your metaphor spotting. The garbled mixing is hilarious when you point them out. They do read like rocket surgery.

I've been reading a lot of Egyptian hieroglyphics lately, I should say struggling to. It takes a good deal of flexibility and no small amount of extrapolation. The syntax is hardly parallel to anything I know. I've been struggling to discern what is present in the arrangement of glyphs that would differentiate the meanings of a sentence like this:

When the scribe sees his daughters face, there is joy in his house.

To see the daughters's face, there is joy in the scribe's house.

When the scribe sees his daughter in his house there is joy on his face.

When the scribe sees his daughter's face, it is a joyous house.

Joy in the house because the scribe sees his daughters face.

The scribe is joyful, apparent by his visage, to see his daughter in the house.

To see the daughters face in the house brings joy to the scribe.

Seeing the daughter busy at home fills the scribe with joy.

The scribe's daughter is usually bitchy but today she's a joy in the house.

Daughter, face, his, in, house joy, his.

(It gets down to the placement of horned vipers which represent masculine possessive.)

The problem is, I have no key so there's no way to check where I go wrong.

And now that practice of struggling to understand simple sentences has carried over to everyday English. Here, there's no getting around, the martial analogy "stand down" can confidently be added to the million ways devised in English to say, "Oh, just STFU."

I lost my overies at age 27. I have two children, one natural, one adopted. I say stand down if you believe in murder, because that is what abortion is. You can dress it up all you want, but it is still murder.

Babies are well on the way to development by 7 weeks and they certainly feel pain long before 20-22 weeks.

It is just beyond my comprehension how any woman can murder her own flesh and blood.

We had to wait yeas to adopt because there were no babies to be adopted, they were all being thrown in the refuse bin. The old canard about sending women back to the back alley is just that, a canard. A talking point. The number of back alley abortions compared to the nearly 50 million babies who have been killed ... it is unconscionable.

There is virtually no stigma today to being a single or unwed mother and the only women I know who have abortions or who support abortion are those who don't want stretch marks or to be saddled with any responsibility for a child because of their careers. And, of course, liberal women who we already know are quite self-centered and selfish.

I say stand down if you are in government. Stand up if you think babies should not be murdered for political or career reasons.

And to head off any comments about how I don't know what its like to be young and pregnant, I can assure you I do. My son was the product of a gang rape at a fraternity house when I was a sophomore in college. I had to drop out, my family disowned me for years, and I was completely unprepared to earn a living. But I never considered abortion. He was my child, my own flesh and blood. We went thru hell for a couple of years and it was rough, but we made it through and when they told me I would never be able to have more children a few years later, I realized that he truly was a gift from God. You see, my tubes were tied in knots like pretzels and the doctors, 4 specialists, told me that conception was impossible ever. They considered the fact that I had conceived to be a miracle they could not explain.

What I've always found baffling about arguments that only women should get to make decisions (legal and otherwise) on abortion is that these arguments simply flies in the face of empirical fact. Poll after poll shows that women are less supportive of abortion than men. Sometimes, the difference is not statistically significan. What is significant is that, women, taken as a group, are ALWAYS less supportive than men of abortion rights.

Sounds like Rep. Long is the same kind of person who thought Saddam Hussein was okay so long as he was only killing "his own" people.

Life begins at conception, but I don't see why states don't at least use the heart or brain tests to determine when there is life. I mean, if it's good enough to tell when someone's no longer alive, how is it not good enough to tell when they are alive?

"I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should “stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

As a Florida resident I will petition Ms. Long to propose legislation in Florida to eliminate males from having a child support obligation as long as woman have sole authority on remaining pregnant. And to include in the legislation the elimination of state welfare benefits to single woman to cover child expenses. Her body, her choice, her obligation.

I consider that a pretty useless poll question, since most Americans don't have the foggiest idea what Roe means or what the implications of its being overturned would be. There is a widespread misconception that if Roe was overturned, all abortion would immediately become illegal. Nonsense, of course.

The more informative questions are the ones that touch on specific areas of abortion policy -- specifically when it should be allowed, etc. Those polls reveal that Americans have a strong preference for much stricter abortion laws than Roe allows, but not for the total ban that pro-lifers want.

I don't mean to be cruel Roger, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.Roe V Wade, not a great law. Repeal of womens reproductive rights, never. I will take to the streets before I let any repeal of Roe V Wade get enacted.

Some of you nimrods feel that women have abortions on a whim, that it is their form of birth control. If you think that then you don't know women.

I wouldn't be sure that the Roberts Court respects stare decisis the way you think they do, or ought.

While they reached the right result, the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case took out a 1990 and a 2003 decision, and I don't see why Roberts and Alito would be any more respectful of Casey than they were of the two decisions they helped reverse, while Scalia and Thomas argued in Casey that Roe was wrongly decided.

Abortions occur for all sorts of reasons: maintenance of appearance, avoidance of responsibility, to hide some sin like adultery, etc. The idea that there are some noble reasons for abortions and that they are the most common is a myth of the pro abortion rights side of the debate.

whether or not Blow is exaggerating the nature of the landscape, we all know Obama is going to pick a SC justice who supports abortion rights. hasent he already said something to that effect ?

and on the issue itself -- i cant imagine telling another woman what she had to do with her womb; and i also cant really see myself terminating a pregnancy. but i dont begrudge women who make that choice, and i'm not nosey enough to ask any woman for her explanation for such a personal choice.

taking on a humongous responsibility that you know you cant handle -- emotional stability, family support, time, money .... that is irresponsible. for people who dont believe a fetus is alive, then terminating a pregnancy can be a responsible choice.

I agree that Obama should nominate a baby killer especially one that is happy with letting a baby die if it is born alive after a botched abortion. That is his position after all and he should nominate someone who thinks like he does.

He won the election after all. He is entitled to have his kind of justice.

Freeman, I doubt most of the women you know use pregnancy termination as a form of birth control. I don't know of any woman, save 1, that actually used pregnancy termination as a form of birth control. That was 35 years ago, and she was an idiot. The vast, vast majority of women I have known over the years who have terminated their pregnancies thought long and hard about it and think about it to this day. And Roger, if you do not support the "males get to decide about male fetus" why did you even mention it?

My father was stationed at Ft. Knox and I took my mom and him there for there 50th anniversary.

Then we went to Keeneland and bet on horses.

Then we took a tour of the farms and went to some horse thing and one of the famous horses had just croaked. I placed a small rose at his stable. It was moving.

Horses have big hogs and racing horses get really horny and have to be separated from other horses because they can become violent because they want to shoot their loads.

The poor female horses get fucked every few months, pop up a hopeful winner, desert it, and then go get fucked again. They really are whores. They actually fly internationally to get fucked. International whores I call them. No better than Madonna in my mind.

I've never understood what part of a state's police power- the power reserved to states under the US Constitution to pass laws in the interest of preserving and protecting the general health, safety, morals and welfare of its citizens- somehow doesn't include the power to regulate abortion.

Too bad reading comprehension isn't a requirement to be on the SCOTUS. :-)

My father was stationed at Ft. Knox and I took my mom and him there for there 50th anniversary.

Holy crap Titus, I knew that I might have dated one of your sisters in high school but I never realized that our dads may have swilled beers and listened to hillbilly and western music together. What years was your dad there?

My dad never went back to Ft. Knox after basic. He did enjoy laughing about it in Goldfinger though.

I can't speak for the group, it being of, you know, individuals who have their own opinions. But, just because one wants to minimize gov't intervention doesn't mean that all gov't intervetion is wrong. We expect gov't to protect the weak, including the unborn, from infringment of their rights, most importantly, the right to life.

Really, do you think that being anti-gov't intervention would mean that one would be against child abuse laws? I consider a fetus to be a child; therefore, he or she deserves the same protection. Or are you just trying to be snarky because you don't want to think things through?- Lyssa

I would like to see Roe reversed. It is miserable jurisprudence, as is Lawrence, because it purports to impose federal will on what is clearly the jurisdiction of the states.

In political practice the abortion debate is functionally over. The 2005 South Dakota abortion law was every pro-lifer's dream. Yet the people of South Dakota by popular referendum a year later rescinded that law.

We're talking about a state in which 64% of WOMEN voted Bush in '04.

Were Roe overturned we should see widespread restrictions and limitations on abortion -- three-quarters of the population favor either an outright ban (6%) or some relatively minor restrictions on the procedure.

Absent Roe abortion would remain widely available in all but a handful of low-population states.

I can't speak for the group, it being of, you know, individuals who have their own opinions. But, just because one wants to minimize gov't intervention doesn't mean that all gov't intervetion is wrong. We expect gov't to protect the weak, including the unborn, from infringment of their rights, most importantly, the right to life.

Really, do you think that being anti-gov't intervention would mean that one would be against child abuse laws? I consider a fetus to be a child; therefore, he or she deserves the same protection. Or are you just trying to be snarky because you don't want to think things through?- Lyssa

I don't know of any woman, save 1, that actually used pregnancy termination as a form of birth control. ... The vast, vast majority of women I have known over the years who have terminated their pregnancies thought long and hard about it and think about it to this day.

I don't think you realize that you're not making sense. Just because they thought about it before they did it and still think about it later doesn't mean it wasn't a form of birth control.

You can have a primary and a supplemental health insurance. You keep a supplemental in case your primary doesn't cover everything.

Just because your first method of birth control doesn't work doesn't mean your supplemental (abortion) isn't also birth control.

"...that is irresponsible. for people who dont believe a fetus is alive..."

What, is it dead then?

It's just lifeless tissue until the magical breath of life miraculously animates it to the world of the living, giving it the exalted "personhood" status so that it may be afforded the right to continue existing?

And that's what every single pro-choice argument boils down to - convenience. They just have to terminate/abort/kill the child for it's own darn good. Stop it before it becomes a "person" and then burdens the unfortunate parent.

Nevermind that if these paragons of responsibility were actually living up to it, they wouldn't even be in that situation.

1/2 half of all black babies are aborted. Liberal Women scream the loudest for choice because they do not want to be enslaved by children. The real purpose of abortion is to remove "undesirable" elements from society (eugenics) and the destruction of the family by Progressives. The actual cases of abortion for rape or incest are a tiny fraction. Pro abortion advocates should be honest. Camelia Paglia ( http://privat.ub.uib.no/BUBSY/playboy.htm) is at least honest, which then allows a true discussion.

It is all about money and power. These groups would go out of existence if they got what the claimed they wanted. No movement, no existence, no money. They are all about the money. Tens of millions of dollars are at stake here.

These so called non-profits are as capitalist as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, or Merrill Lynch. They really do not care one way or another about abortion. They only care about the kachingo$.

Drifting, a bit - I found myself admiring the Stupak group for standing on principle. (I was hoping they would kill the healthcare bill.) I was so disappointed when they caved. It was awful.

It seems to me that Pelosi used the pro-lifers - really took advantage of them. Without them - she would never have gotten a bill passed last fall. But they were no longer useful - so they were dismissed.

I generally don't relate to pro-lifers. They seem to be "my way or the high-way" types - and the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking. But I felt for them after the Stupak betrayal.

what do people think of the octomom ? she had frozen embryos. should she have had those disposed of, or would that have been killing ? so you're OK w/ her having 14 kids that she cant really take care of on her own. responsible ? irresponsible ? do you think those frozen embryos were alive, or are you going to now hedge and say its only when those embryos are implanted that its wrong to dispose of them ?

Indeed - it appears we each have trouble relating. I would suggest that you, (representing pro-lifers who take a *my-way-or-the-highway* view) either cannot or will not consider the possibility that not everyone shares your world view or belief system.

Most pro-lifers (the vast majority) that I have encountered are Bible believing Christians. So much like Muslims - they are *sure* they have a corner on *T*ruth and everyone else is wrong.

As you say - not much room for compromise. I would simply repeat - the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking.

"Most pro-lifers (the vast majority) that I have encountered are Bible believing Christians. So much like Muslims - they are *sure* they have a corner on *T*ruth and everyone else is wrong."

What do you call it when you have a really shitty argument and have to bring up something unrelated in a piss poor effort to elevate yourself above some other group that fits your stereotypical views? The term escapes me at the moment.

It may not be something you can *relate* to or understand. It's not nonsense - not even close. It is easier for people to see how cruel Muslims are - in their *my-way-or-the-highway* thinking. They *believe* they know what is right and wrong *absolutely* - and there is no compromise for them.

That's the problem. You see - you have decided that your view of when life begins is *T*ruth - and all the world should abide by it.

I simply continue to repeat - the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking.

What do you call it when you have a really shitty argument and have to bring up something unrelated in a piss poor effort to elevate yourself above some other group that fits your stereotypical views? The term escapes me at the moment.

I think Karl Jung called it projection - didn't he? :-)

It has been my experience that "my-way-or-the highway" type thinkers just can't or won't grasp the idea that there really are other people that don't believe what they believe.

"Quit being a being a snot, GMay. I have successfully avoided pregnancy for 40 years."

Good for you, but we weren't talking about you now were we? You weren't talking about you until now. I wasn't talking about you either.

If you care to defend or elaborate on what seems to be a remarkably immature viewpoint on the subject in general, then please do so. Until then, irrelevant personal anecdotes don't really amount to much.

Fen -- as sure as you are that cells, then zygotes then embryos then fetuses are human's with rights protectable by the state, there are people who would dispute that at every step. so is a collection of cells a life ? how many ? when ? what constitutes life ? exactly when is that moment ? pre-implantation ? post-implantation ? if its pre-implantation, maybe you should consider mandating behaviors that make implantation more likely so that no 'lives' are lost. and if its a life, then are you also offering to take up making sure all these lives are properly fed and taken care of ? Are you advocating mandating and paying for pre-natal vitamins and healthy foods ? penalizing pregnant women who smoke .. or maybe also pregnant women who are stressed. stress is really bad for a fetus.

if people who are anti-choice really cared about the unborn, you'd think they'd really want to take better care of the unborn and be willing to shell out more dough since the unborn are so helpless, eh ?

.... i havent found many people who are anti-choice who are really concerned about the unborn. most of them seem to just be very self-righteous, and want to define for others what sin is and impose their views of what is moral.

"It has been my experience that "my-way-or-the highway" type thinkers just can't or won't grasp the idea that there really are other people that don't believe what they believe."

This is passive-aggressive nonsense.

Actually no. Maybe slow down and think about it. Has it ever really sunk in for you that there are millions (more likely billions) of people on this planet who don't believe what you do? And if it has - is it ok with you for others to be free to choose their own beliefs?

...and since we're on the topic, why stop at the unborn. you'd think that all these super-righteous people who care oh so much about life would also want to make sure that life for all children was really good .... you'd expect public schools to be excellent in all areas -- not just wealthy areas. you'd expect all these caring people to be flooding the inner cities and the rural communities where young people are often not getting access to the best educational resources, and just making things better.

but you people don't do that. you just like to call other people immoral, and murderers.

so how about you stop pretending that you are really so concerned about the lives of un/newly born.

I assume you cannot see that you are proving my point - as this drags out. It's like you either just cannot or will not entertain the idea that there really are people living among you who do not look at things the way you do. And, my goodness, the world has been hurt enough by those who are so convinced they are *right* that they would blithely, unconscionably force others to live by their beliefs.

I don't believe that abortion is murder. I don't believe that at all. So now what? Do you think you have a clever argument to then ask me questions about rape and morality? If you have a point to make - make it.

since you dont know when life begins, I think its too risky for men to ejaculate when not doing so with the intent of impregnating a woman. and i think there should not be fornication. and I think contraception is evil. so no birth control pills. no condoms. sex itself is life producing. we've got to protect life and all its components.

Has it ever really sunk in for you that there are millions (more likely billions) of people on this planet who don't believe what you do?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours." - Napier

Dumb question. We're not talking about just any old collection of cells now are we? Which makes the next questions...

"how many ? when ?"

...just as dumb. This next one isn't as dumb as much as it is ignorant:

"what constitutes life ?"

Not even gonna bother with that, but you can bet your sweet ass if we found a collection of random cells growing on Mars that we'd consider it "life".

"exactly when is that moment ?"

In regards to human reproduction, I'd say it's the moment it has a unique genetic identity. I like easy questions.

"if its pre-implantation, maybe you should consider mandating behaviors that make implantation more likely so that no 'lives' are lost."

Golly, stumbled upon the subject of the thread now didn't we? I think the behavior and the mandate had something to do with the word "abortion".

"and if its a life, then are you also offering to take up making sure all these lives are properly fed and taken care of ?"

Ahhh, the liberal mind hard at work here, showing no grasp of the concept of personal responsibility. No grasp at all.

"Are you advocating mandating and paying for pre-natal vitamins and healthy foods ?"

What this has to do with abortion is anyone's guess. Same for the remainder of that wandering paragraph.

"if people who are anti-choice really cared about the unborn, you'd think they'd really want to take better care of the unborn and be willing to shell out more dough since the unborn are so helpless, eh?"

If the anti-life people had a single clue about being responsible for one's own actions and that actions have consequences, we wouldn't get such asinine statements like this.

".... i havent found many people who are anti-choice who are really concerned about the unborn. most of them seem to just be very self-righteous, and want to define for others what sin is and impose their views of what is moral."

And I haven't found many people who are anti-life that have the first clue about what a moral is and its utility in a civilized society.

Well, when you can prove that an abortion is murder, then come back with your proof. Until then, I've got a list of things here that are unprovable that I also believe that you doing amounts to murder of the unborn -- so you should stop doing all of them. so no more jacking off for you. no more sex except with the intention to procreate.

You're dodging Dani. Its a hypothetical. Assume "convincing [to you] scientific proof that abortion is murder". And I had specifically inserted "to you" in the original question to indicate that the proof meets whatever standard YOU would require.

Would you still abort? A simple yes or no is all thats needed. You refuse to answer, I think we know why. Because, for you, its not about whether a fetus is human. You would kill it anyway.

Again, it look like your support of abortion is less on its merits and more about poking your finger in the eyes of some self-righteous christian who called you a sinner.

Jeez - what to say :-) Does it bother you if my view of abortion has *merit* based on your beliefs and values? It's like you're contradicting yourself here. Can you see that? Do you think it is ok for me to have a different view of abortion than you do or don't you? It's not clear to me that you are ok with me having my own view - regardless of whether or not my view passes your test of credibility. Do you see what I'm saying here.

Because you reflexively assume those of us arguing against you are just like them.

As I said - my experience has been that the vast majority of pro-lifers - the ones I have had interactions with - have been Bible believing Christians. Not all of them have. But the vast majority.

"I assume you cannot see that you are proving my point - as this drags out.

It's like you...... If you have a point to make - make it."

I assume you cannot see that you're proving my point - that you can't answer a simple question.

It's like you either just cannot or will not entertain the idea that there really are simple questions that are easily answered with minimal effort. And, my goodness, the world has had enough people who demonstrate they aren't either unable or unconscionably unwilling to answer a simple question.

I didn't ask if you believed abortion was murder. I didn't ask that at all. So now what? I'll ask you again, do you think rape is wrong?

It's a yes or no question so you don't have to tax your brain with composing complex sentences:

Is rape wrong? There's the question again. Got it? think about it, then type your one word answer and stop acting like a broken record for fuck's sake.

No, it you who thinks abortion is murder. I don't. I don't believe that abortion is killing a baby. I assume that you do believe that? :-) That's what I keep trying to point out here. It seems very difficult for some to comprehend the fact that there really are people who do not look at things the same way that they do :-)

I think that calling pro-choice people baby-killers is a big mistake on the part of the pro-lifers. But again, that is just my opinion :-) It certainly doesn't persuade me of anything - or make me want to change in any way or cause to feel guilt or shame or unworthy in some way. I find it off-putting.

My point about the world and the hurt caused by those who so coldly, cruelly even, impose their will on others is just an observation.

Fen, I answered your question: Killing people is wrong. I CLEARLY do not sanction killing people.

my earlier points related to support for the life of people that you feel need to be protected (by laws -- in this case anti-abortion laws). my point was, if you believe the unborn need protection, then your concern for life should reasonably extend beyond birth in some meaningful way.

danielle: "GMay, its too bad you never learned to argue without making personal attacks. You're coming off pretty pathetically."

If I were just calling you a dumbass without backing that up, that would be pathetic. But since I'm rebutting you point for point and your arguments are getting farther and farther afield, I'd say my comments are justified.

The conclusion here of, basically, if you don't have ovaries then you don't get a voice is bullshit.

When men are not required to pay child support, then the men don't warrant a voice. Otherwise, since the man is financially liable, he earned a voice. And I'm a proud dad of two kids and love them more than life

And I think any man who would walk out on their kids is no man...but they're not worse than a woman who aborts hers.

Everyone's talking past each other, so I doubt this will do much good, but I'd like to respond to a very specific point.

Danielle stated several times something to the nature of that if we want to protect the unborn, we should be providing for children as well. I'm honestly not sure what her point was; there's no way that any of it defends the idea of killng an innocent person because he or she is not visable (without specialized technology).

But, Danielle, I'd like to point out that we do protect children in the same way that we would like to protect unborn children. Society is in wide agreement that born children are not to be abused, neglected, or murdered. Those that do these things are punished harshly. No one cries that you ought to mind your own business when they remove a child from the care of a parent who is beating him.

We also widely agree that children should be cared for, and we have countless charitable and governmental organizations seeing that food and care are widely available for the helpless. No one here would change these things, I'm sure.

I think the unborn ought to be protected as well as children who are born. Using your own logic, no one is hypocritical here.

If only the potentially pregnant can speak on abortion, then women who are too old to get pregnant also have to shut up. Sorry, Ann. No free speech for you. Issue doesn't concern you any more. Also, all women have to shut up about war because they can't be drafted. Doesn't affect you, so be quiet.

Amazing how comfortable the left is with censoring and silencing people.